Importance of cell viability and proliferation measurements

Cell viability and proliferation measurements are fundamental in biological and pharmaceutical research, playing key roles in drug discovery, toxicology, and cancer studies. In drug discovery, they evaluate the effects of therapeutic agents on cells, determining their potential to promote growth or induce cytotoxicity. Toxicology uses these assays to assess the harmful effects of agents on organisms, offering insights into risks to human health and the environment. In cancer research, understanding cell proliferation and treatment-induced cell death is essential for developing effective therapies. These measurements help identify promising drugs, assess safety profiles, and unravel biological processes driving cell survival and growth, enabling informed decisions in critical research areas¹.

Colorimetric assays in cell-viability assessment

Colorimetric assays are widely used for cell viability due to their simplicity and suitability for high-throughput screening. Among these, tetrazolium salt-based assays are prominent. They rely on viable cells’ metabolic activity to reduce colorless or slightly colored tetrazolium salts into colored formazan products that are measurable spectrophotometrically². The color intensity correlates directly with the number of viable cells.

XTT assay overview

The XTT (sodium 3ʹ-[1-(phenylamino)-carbonyl]-3,4-tetrazolium]-bis (4 methoxy-6-nitro) benzene-sulfonic acid hydrate) assay is a key colorimetric method for cell-viability assessment. Like other tetrazolium-based assays, it involves the reduction of yellow XTT by mitochondrial enzymes in metabolically active cells¹. This process produces a water-soluble colored formazan product directly quantifiable via absorbance measurements². Unlike the MTT assay, XTT eliminates the need for a solubilization step, simplifying procedures and improving usability.

Historical context of tetrazolium salt assays

Tetrazolium salt assays trace back to earlier methods such as the MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay, which is widely used for cytotoxicity and proliferation studies³. However, MTT has drawbacks, including insoluble formazan crystals requiring solvents for quantification, potentially introducing variability and artifacts¹.

Comparison to MTT assay

The XTT assay was developed to address the MTT assay’s limitations. Unlike MTT, XTT produces a water-soluble formazan product, streamlining procedures and enhancing reliability². This solubility removes the need for cytotoxic solvents, enabling clearer viability measurements. Additionally, XTT performs well at both high and low cell densities, offering greater sensitivity than the MTT assay^1,2.

Advancements in scientific methodology

The adoption of the XTT assay marks a significant advancement in cell-based methodologies by providing higher sensitivity and accuracy with simplified workflows compared to earlier methods¹. Direct measurement of soluble formazan reduces errors and facilitates automation and high-throughput applications⁴.

Widespread adoption of XTT

With its reliability, user-friendliness, and broad applicability, the XTT assay is being increasingly used across research fields. It is an essential tool for evaluating cell viability and cytotoxicity in response to various stimuli, contributing to progress in drug development, toxicology studies, and understanding cellular processes.

The science behind XTT: Unveiling the principle of metabolic activity measurement

The core principle of XTT assays

The XTT assay is based on the correlation between cellular metabolic activity and cell viability. Living cells rely on active metabolism for energy production and survival². The assay quantifies viable cells by measuring their ability to enzymatically reduce the yellow XTT reagent into an orange-colored formazan product. The intensity of the orange color correlates directly with the number of metabolically active cells in the culture¹.
This color change is measured spectrophotometrically, with higher absorbance indicating more viable cells and lower readings reflecting reduced viability or fewer living cells².

Chemical basis of the XTT assay

The XTT assay relies on the bioreduction of yellow, water-soluble XTT tetrazolium into orange-colored, water-soluble formazan. This reaction is primarily driven by mitochondrial dehydrogenases, such as NADH dehydrogenase and succinate dehydrogenase. These enzymes play a key role in energy production via oxidative phosphorylation. They transfer electrons to the XTT molecule, reducing it into colored formazan, a process tied to active mitochondrial functions and ATP production¹.

The amount of formazan formed reflects dehydrogenase activity, which indicates cell metabolism and viability¹. This enzymatic reduction highlights the transformation of tetrazolium salt into formazan within metabolically active cells⁴.

Mitochondrial involvement

Mitochondrial dehydrogenases, particularly those in the electron transport chain, are central to XTT reduction. The succinate-tetrazolium reductase system in mitochondria drives this process¹. Although MTT reduction was linked to succinate dehydrogenase, studies show NADH-dependent oxidoreductases also contribute significantly to tetrazolium salt reduction, including XTT⁵.

Mitochondrial activity strongly reflects cell viability; damage to mitochondria or reduced metabolic function lowers XTT reduction and formazan production². Thus, the assay indirectly assesses mitochondrial health as an indicator of overall cell viability.

Proportionality between formazan and cell viability

The XTT assay demonstrates a direct relationship between water-soluble formazan production and viable cell count. As long as metabolic activity remains stable, the quantity of formazan accurately reflects living cell numbers in culture. This proportionality enables precise assessments of cell viability under different treatments or conditions¹.

Water-solubility advantage of XTT

A major advantage of XTT over MTT is the former’s water-soluble formazan product, eliminating the need for organic solvents required to dissolve insoluble MTT crystals. This simplifies procedures, reduces errors from solubilization steps, and enhances suitability for high-throughput screening and automation systems². Avoiding organic solvents minimizes disruption to cellular components, providing a more accurate measure of viability¹.

Delving into the chemistry: The XTT reduction reaction in detail

Chemical basis of the XTT assay

The XTT assay measures the reduction of yellow XTT salt to orange, water-soluble formazan by metabolically active cells⁴. The negatively charged sulfonated tetrazolium compound undergoes two-electron reduction, producing a spectrophotometrically quantifiable product⁵. This transformation enables colorimetric measurement of cellular metabolism⁴.

Enzymatic involvement in the reduction process

NAD(P)H-dependent oxidoreductases drive XTT reduction using NADH/NADPH cofactors from glycolysis and citric acid cycle. The process correlates with intracellular NAD(P)H levels, as shown by glycolysis inhibitors affecting reduction rates⁵.

Role of electron-coupling reagents

Phenazine methosulfate (PMS) enhances reduction by shuttling electrons from cellular reductases to extracellular XTT^4,6. This facilitates reduction via cell surface oxidases linked to NADH production⁵.

Cellular enzyme contribution

Although mitochondrial enzymes were initially believed to be the primary contributors, XTT reduction involves both mitochondrial and non-mitochondrial enzymes⁵. With PMS, the reduction occurs primarily at cell surface oxidases, though mitochondrial metabolism provides essential reducing equivalents (NADH/NADPH)^4,5.

Why choose XTT? Advantages of XTT over other methods in cell-viability assays

Comparison with MTT assay

The XTT assay offers significant advantages over the MTT assay, primarily due to the water solubility of its formazan product¹. Unlike MTT, which forms insoluble formazan crystals requiring solubilization with organic solvents⁶, XTT’s soluble formazan can be directly quantified via spectrophotometry. This eliminates a procedural step, reduces cytotoxicity risks from solvents, and simplifies the assay. Additionally, XTT provides increased sensitivity in applications with high cell density and delivers more reliable results by avoiding issues such as incomplete formazan dissolution seen in MTT assays¹.

Increased sensitivity and accuracy

The XTT assay has demonstrated greater sensitivity than MTT in specific contexts. Its soluble formazan product ensures a consistent signal, leading to more accurate viability assessments¹. It is particularly effective at low cell densities, offering precise predictions of viable cell numbers⁷. The elimination of solvent steps reduces variability and artifacts, enhancing result accuracy. This sensitivity is crucial for detecting subtle viability changes or working with limited cell numbers.

High-throughput screening compatibility

The streamlined protocol and direct measurement of XTT make it ideal for high-throughput screening (HTS) platforms⁸. Without washing or solubilization steps, the assay is easily automated, increasing efficiency and enabling rapid processing of large sample sets. This is particularly advantageous in drug discovery, where numerous compounds or conditions must be screened quickly^8,9. The reliability and sensitivity of XTT further enhance data quality in HTS workflows.

Simplified protocol

The XTT assay features a simpler protocol than that of the MTT assay by eliminating the formazan solubilization step. After incubation with the XTT reagent, absorbance can be read directly from the culture plate, saving time and reducing errors associated with handling and transferring samples during solubilization¹.

Kinetic measurements of cell viability

XTT’s water-soluble formazan enables kinetic measurements of cell viability. Because the product remains in the medium, absorbance readings can be taken at multiple time points without disrupting the assay. This allows dynamic monitoring of viability changes over time in response to stimuli, providing richer data compared to endpoint assays such as MTT^1,3.

Non-radioactive nature

Like other tetrazolium-based assays, XTT is non-radioactive, offering a safer alternative to methods using radioactive isotopes such as 3H-thymidine. Non-radioactive assays are easier to handle, avoid generating hazardous waste, and are more accessible to labs worldwide⁴.

Comparisons to other tetrazolium assays

XTT is a second-generation tetrazolium salts such as MTS and WST-1 that produce water-soluble formazan. Although these assays share this advantage, they differ in sensitivity, stability, and requirements for electron acceptors such as PMS. For example, WST-1 includes PMS and is reduced extracellularly. Studies comparing XTT with WST salts have shown variations in reduction rates and sensitivity depending on cell types and conditions⁵.

Acknowledging limitations: When to consider alternatives to XTT assays

Electron-coupling reagents and potential toxicity

Electron-coupling reagents such as PMS can exhibit cellular toxicity at higher concentrations. Non-enzymatic reduction of XTT may occur with PMS and reductants, even without cells, leading to false-positive signals or elevated background absorbance⁵. This necessitates careful interpretation of results, especially when non-cellular reductants are present.

Background-absorbance issues

XTT can undergo non-enzymatic reduction, increasing background absorbance and reducing specificity^4,5. Factors such as reducing agents in culture media or XTT instability under certain conditions exacerbate this issue. High background may require additional controls or alternative assays less prone to non-specific reduction, particularly those avoiding external electron shuttles.

Interference from cell culture medium components

Certain media components, such as high serum levels, ascorbic acid, cysteine, and tocopherols, can non-enzymatically reduce XTT⁴. Test compounds may also directly react with XTT or its formazan product, skewing results. Including cell-free controls helps identify interference. If media components cause significant issues, alternative assays that are less affected by such interactions are preferable.

Variability between cell types

XTT reduction efficiency varies across cell types due to differences in metabolic activity, reductase expression, and membrane properties⁵. For cells with low metabolic activity or altered transport mechanisms, XTT may lack sensitivity. Cross-validation with alternative viability assays ensures robust conclusions.

Limitations in measuring aspects of cellular health

The XTT assay measures metabolic activity via NAD(P)H-dependent enzymes¹, but does not assess membrane integrity, apoptosis, or other cellular functions. Complementary methods such as trypan blue exclusion², TUNEL assays, or caspase activity detection⁸ provide a more complete picture. For nanomaterials, physical interference with tetrazolium assays may necessitate label-free methods such as iCELLigence¹.

Performing the XTT Assay: Methodology for reliable results

Reagent preparation

Meticulous reagent preparation is critical. XTT is typically supplied as a powder. A stock solution should be prepared in PBS or phenol red-free medium. For a 96-well plate, 5 mL of XTT reagent is mixed with 0.1 mL of PMS to create the working solution, followed by thorough mixing to ensure homogeneity.

XTT stock and PMS (5 mM) should be stored as single-use aliquots at −20°C, protected from light. The working solution must be prepared freshly in a serum-free medium for each experiment to prevent degradation.

Cell seeding

Cell viability and density should be confirmed via trypan blue exclusion prior to seeding. The cells are seeded into flat-bottom 96-well plates in the desired medium.
Optimal seeding densities are recommended as follows: 5,000–10,000 cells/well for proliferation assays; approximately 2,000 cells/well for certain cell lines (eg, tumor cells). An even distribution in 200 µL of serum-supplemented medium should be ensured.
Untreated controls (cells + medium) and blank controls (medium alone) must be included for 100% viability reference and background measurement. Plates are incubated at 37°C with 5% CO₂ for 24–96 h. For cytotoxicity assays, test compounds are added after cell attachment.

XTT addition and incubation

Following treatment, 50 µL of freshly prepared XTT working solution is added to each well (assuming 100 µL medium/well). Bubble formation should be avoided. The plate is gently mixed on an orbital shaker for 1 min.

The plate is returned to the incubator for 2–4 h (duration to be optimized based on cell type). During incubation, yellow XTT is reduced to orange formazan by metabolically active cells. Color development should be monitored to confirm viability.

Measurement

Absorbance is measured using a spectrophotometer (ELISA reader), with 450–500 nm (typically, 450 or 475 nm) serving as the primary wavelength and 660–690 nm as the reference wavelength.

Prior to measurement, the plate is gently shaken for 1 min. Microplate reader calibration should be performed, and you should ensure the wells are clean. For data analysis, the reference wavelength absorbance is subtracted from the primary wavelength absorbance.

Data analysis

The final step is data analysis. First, the average absorbance value for the blank control wells (wells containing only culture medium) is calculated.

This average blank absorbance is then subtracted from the absorbance readings of the sample wells (both treated and untreated cells) at the primary measurement wavelength (eg, 450 or 475 nm) and, if used, at the reference wavelength. When a reference wavelength is employed, the blank-corrected absorbance at the reference wavelength is subtracted from the blank-corrected absorbance at the primary wavelength.

To measure cell viability, the corrected absorbance values of treated samples are typically expressed as a percentage of the corrected absorbance values of the untreated control wells.

Dose-response curves can be generated by plotting cell viability percentages against the concentrations of the test compound. Statistical analysis should be performed to determine the significance of any observed effects. It is important to consider the potential limitations of the XTT assay when interpreting the results^5,10. For a more comprehensive understanding of cellular health, results from the XTT assay can be combined with data from other cytotoxicity assays⁸.

Troubleshooting your XTT assay: Common problems and practical solutions

No color development or very low absorbance readings

This issue is a common challenge in XTT assays, where minimal or absent color change and low absorbance values often result from various experimental factors.

Cell-related issues are frequently at the root of the problem. Low cell viability (<70% by trypan blue exclusion), over-confluent or growth-arrested cells, and excessive cytotoxicity from test compounds can all interfere with assay outcomes.

Reagents may also contribute to the issue. Degraded XTT/PMS (due to improper storage or expiration), an incorrect XTT:PMS ratio (optimal ratio, 1:0.2–0.25 mM), and inadequate mixing of the working solution can affect results.

Protocol-related factors, such as insufficient incubation time (typically, 1–4 h), inadequate cell seeding density (which should be optimized for each cell line), and incubation temperature fluctuations, can further impact assay accuracy.

To address these challenges, pre-assay cell viability ideally needs to be >90% and should include live/dead controls. Fresh XTT/PMS aliquots must be prepared and stored at −20°C to protect from light, and reagents with known viable cells must be tested. The protocol can be optimized by standardizing the seeding density (starting with 10,000 cells/well), extending incubation time incrementally (checking hourly), and using plate sealers to prevent evaporation.

High background absorbance in control wells

Elevated background signals can significantly affect assay sensitivity, particularly when working with samples exhibiting low metabolic activity. Several common sources contribute to this issue, including components in the media, such as phenol red and high serum concentrations, non-enzymatic reduction of XTT, microbial contamination, and plate reading artifacts such as bubbles or debris.

To address these challenges, adjustments to the medium can be made. Switching to phenol red-free medium and reducing serum to 2–5% during the assay might be effective strategies, although the latter may affect the proliferation of the cels as well.

Incorporating assay controls, such as reagent-only blanks, can help isolate background noise, and using dual-wavelength readings (450–490 nm versus 650–690 nm) can further differentiate signal from background. Centrifuging plates before reading can also help reduce the impact of particulate matter.

To ensure sterility, it is recommended to filter-sterilize the XTT working solution and check for microbial contamination microscopically.

Variable or inconsistent results

Inter-well and inter-experiment variability can compromise the reliability of dose-response relationships and comparative studies. Critical control points include cell seeding, where it is important to use cells from the same passage number, standardize the counting method (preferably automated), and allow 30 min for cell settling before incubation. For plate handling, using the outer wells or placing the buffer in the perimeter should be avoided, uniform incubation conditions must be ensured, and sample placement must be randomized to reduce bias. Regarding reagent delivery, the XTT solution should be prewarmed, calibrated multichannel pipettes should be used, and the solution must be mixed gently after addition without vortexing.

Unexpected dose-response curves

Aberrant dose-response relationships necessitate careful interpretation to differentiate genuine biological effects from assay artifacts. The troubleshooting approach involves several key steps. First, the test compound should be assessed by checking its solubility through visual inspection and evaluating its stability by using HPLC if available. Additionally, compound-only controls must be included to account for any direct effects. For assay interference, shortening the incubation time (1–2 h), testing with or without PMS, and comparing results with alternative assays such as MTT or WST-1 can be considered. Finally, biological factors should be verified by confirming the sensitivity of the cell line, assessing its metabolic state (glycolysis versus OXPHOS), and testing with multiple cell lines to ensure the robustness of the results.

Biofilm disruption during washing steps

The structural complexity of biofilms presents unique challenges for the implementation of the XTT assay. Optimization involves several key considerations. For biofilm growth, validated reference strains should be used, and the growth time should be standardized, typically between 24 and 48 h, with the inclusion of positive controls. In terms of assay modifications, XTT incubation should be extended to 4–8 h, and washing steps should be minimized using gentle PBS rinses. The use of biofilm disruptors, such as DNase or dispersin B, may also be considered. Validation of results should involve correlating XTT assay outcomes with CFU counts, including dead biofilm controls, and confirming findings through microscopy.

XTT in action: Applications across diverse scientific disciplines

Drug discovery

The XTT assay is a widely adopted colorimetric method for screening and evaluating the cytotoxic and cytostatic effects of potential drug candidates on various cell lines. By measuring the metabolic activity of cells, which reflects their viability, after treatment with different compounds, researchers can identify promising leads for therapeutic development⁷. The intensity of the orange color, measured spectrophotometrically, is directly proportional to the number of viable cells, allowing for the quantification of drug-induced cell death or growth inhibition¹¹. This makes the XTT assay a valuable tool in the early stages of drug discovery, enabling the rapid assessment of a large number of compounds for their potential therapeutic efficacy against various diseases.

Toxicology

In toxicology, the XTT assay serves as a fundamental in vitro method for assessing the toxicological impact of various substances on cell viability. This includes evaluating the effects of environmental pollutants such as volatile organic compounds, industrial chemicals, and nanoparticles on cellular health^12,13. By quantifying the reduction in cell viability following exposure to different concentrations of a test substance, researchers can determine its cytotoxic potential and establish dose-response relationships. For example, studies have utilized the XTT assay to investigate the toxicity of nano-scale TiO₂, revealing that it can overestimate cell viability in certain conditions due to superoxide formation^7,11. The ease of use and relatively high sensitivity of the XTT assay make it a common choice for initial toxicological screenings, providing crucial data for risk assessment and the development of safer products.

Cancer research

The XTT assay plays a crucial role in various aspects of cancer research, particularly in studying cancer cell growth and proliferation and evaluating the effectiveness of anticancer therapies. Researchers routinely use the XTT assay to assess the cytotoxicity of novel anticancer agents on different cancer cell lines, providing essential information for drug development¹⁴. Furthermore, the assay is instrumental in understanding mechanisms of drug resistance by comparing the response of drug-sensitive and drug-resistant cancer cells. By measuring the metabolic activity of cancer cells after treatment, the XTT assay can determine the extent of cell death or growth inhibition, helping to identify promising therapeutic strategies and study factors affecting cancer cell survival¹⁵. The water-soluble formazan product of XTT simplifies the assay procedure compared to assays such as MTT, making it a preferred choice in many cancer research laboratories.

Antimicrobial research

The XTT assay is widely employed in antimicrobial research to determine the susceptibility of bacteria and fungi to antimicrobial agents, including synthetic compounds and natural products. By measuring the metabolic activity of microbial cells after exposure to different concentrations of an antimicrobial, researchers can determine the minimum inhibitory concentration and assess the overall efficacy of the agent¹⁶. The XTT assay is particularly useful for assessing the impact of antimicrobials on biofilms, which are surface-associated microbial communities known to be more resistant to treatment than planktonic cells. The ability of the XTT assay to quantify metabolically active cells within a biofilm provides valuable insights into the efficacy of antibiofilm strategies⁶.

Material science and tissue engineering

Cell-viability assessment is fundamental to the advancement of material science and tissue engineering, playing a vital role in the development of functional biomaterials and engineered tissues. In the context of engineered tissues and artificial organ development, the determination of cell viability encompasses a range of crucial aspects, including cell survival, growth, metabolic functionality, and the integrity of cell membranes. Several cell-viability assays are used to ensure that the designed tissues provide a supportive environment for cellular activities and integration within the host¹⁷.

Furthermore, the development of biocompatible materials for tissue engineering, such as polyurethane-based scaffolds, heavily relies on the evaluation of cell viability. These materials, particularly for bone regeneration, necessitate specific physicochemical characteristics to facilitate cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation¹⁸. The design and modification of these scaffolds often involve incorporating substances such as titanium, bioactive glass nanoparticles, or hydroxyapatite to improve their bioactivity and ability to support bone growth. Consequently, assessing the cell viability by using such modified materials is essential to confirm their non-toxic nature and their capacity to foster tissue development¹⁸.

Immunology

In immunology, researchers use the XTT assay to study the effects of various factors, such as cytokines and immune modulators, on the proliferation and viability of immune cells¹³. By measuring the metabolic activity of immune cell populations after exposure to different stimuli or inhibitors, the XTT assay can provide insights into their responsiveness and overall health. For example, the assay can be used to assess whether a particular compound enhances or suppresses the proliferation of lymphocytes or affects the viability of macrophages¹⁹. While other assays such as ELISA are commonly used to measure specific immune responses (eg, cytokine production), the XTT assay offers a general measure of immune cell metabolic activity, which can be indicative of their functional state and viability in response to immunological stimuli.

Conclusion: The versatility and significance of the XTT assay

The XTT assay remains a cornerstone of cell-viability assessment, offering numerous advantages over traditional methods such as the MTT assay. Its key benefits include water-soluble formazan production, eliminating the need for solubilization steps, and providing high sensitivity and accuracy in measuring metabolic activity. The assay’s simplified protocol, compatibility with high-throughput screening, and capacity for kinetic measurements make it indispensable in modern research.

The applications of the XTT assay span diverse scientific fields, from drug discovery and toxicology to cancer research and antimicrobial studies. It plays an important role in evaluating drug efficacy, nanoparticle toxicity, and biofilm susceptibility, while also supporting advancements in material science and immunology. Its adaptability across cell types and experimental conditions underscores its broad utility.

Even with the emergence of newer assays, the XTT method retains enduring relevance owing to its reliability, ease of use, and capability to deliver consistent, reproducible results. Although limitations such as PMS-mediated background or medium interference exist, proper optimization mitigates these challenges. As research continues to evolve, the XTT assay remains a vital tool for studying cellular metabolism and viability, cementing its place in both fundamental and applied biomedical sciences.

References

1.      Demirkalp, C. A. N. Use and comparison of MTT, XTT and iCELLigence methods in the evaluation of drug toxicity. Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care. 6, 66-71 (2025).

2.      Kamiloglu, S., Sari, G., Ozdal, T., et al. Guidelines for cell viability assays. Food Frontiers. 1, 332-349 (2020).

3.      Pintor, A. V. B., et al. MTT versus other cell viability assays to evaluate the biocompatibility of root canal filling materials: a systematic review. Int Endodontic J. 53, 1348-1373 (2020).

4.      Stockert, J. C., Horobin, R. W., Colombo, L. L., et al. Tetrazolium salts and formazan products in Cell Biology: Viability assessment, fluorescence imaging, and labeling perspectives. Acta Histochemica. 120, 159-167 (2018).

5.      Berridge, M. V., Herst, P. M., Tan, A. S., et al. Tetrazolium dyes as tools in cell biology: New insights into their cellular reduction. Biotechnology Annual Review. 11, 127-152 (2005).

6.      Lama, S., Merlin-Zhang, O., Yang, C., et al. In Vitro and In Vivo Models for Evaluating the Oral Toxicity of Nanomedicines. Nanomaterials. 10, 2177 (2020).

7.      Chaudhry, G., et al. Cytotoxicity assays for cancer drug screening: methodological insights and considerations for reliable assessment in drug discovery.  Braz. J. Biol.  84, e284409 (2024).

8.      Alfraidi, A., Fagundes, T. C. Cell-based Cytotoxicity Methods Hücre Bazlı Sitotoksisite Yöntemleri. (2018).

9.      Kuhn, D. M., Balkis, M., Chandra, J., et al. Uses and Limitations of the XTT Assay in Studies of Candida Growth and Metabolism. J Clin Microbiol. 41, 506-508 (2003)

10.  Wang, M., Ling, K.-H., Tan, J., et al. Development and Differentiation of Midbrain Dopaminergic Neuron: From Bench to Bedside. Cells. 9, 1489 (2020).

11.  Niu, J., Li, M., Wang, Y., et al. Cell Proliferation and Cytotoxicity Assays, The Fundamentals for Drug Discovery. IJDDP. 100013 (2024).

12.  Gale, E., Li, M., et al. Midbrain dopaminergic neuron fate specification: Of mice and embryonic stem cells. Mol Brain. 1, 8 (2008).

13.  Bahadar, H., Maqbool, F., Niaz, K., et al. Toxicity of Nanoparticles and an Overview of Current Experimental Models.  Iran. Biomed. J.  (Year missing).

14.  Ediriweera, M. K., Tennekoon, K. H., Samarakoon, S. R., et al. In vitro assays and techniques utilized in anticancer drug discovery. J of Applied Toxicology. 39, 38-71 (2019).

15.  Sanjai, C., Hakkimane, S. S., Guru, B. R., et al. A comprehensive review on anticancer evaluation techniques. Bioorganic Chemistry. 142, 106973 (2024).

16.  Balouiri, M., Sadiki, M., Ibnsouda, S. K., et al. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis. 6, 71-79 (2016).

17.  Park, J. C., Hwang, Y. S., Suh, H., et al. Viability evaluation of engineered tissues. Yonsei Med J. 41, 836 (2000).

18.  Szczepańczyk, P., Szlachta, M., Złocista-Szewczyk, N., et al. Recent Developments in Polyurethane-Based Materials for Bone Tissue Engineering. Polymers. 13, 946 (2021).

19.  Khatua, S., Simal-Gandara, J., Acharya, K., et al. Understanding immune-modulatory efficacy in vitro. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 352, 109776 (2022).